It creates seeds you can't harvest, plant and grow again to maintain a captive market.

When it can't do that, it sues farmers that harvest, plan and grow the seed it wants to protect.

This includes Monsanto's crops contaminating other crops like in the Vernon Hugh Bowman case.

It also promoted (at least in France) round up as biodegradable but we eventually found out it didn't, and went to contaminate the drinking water.

Which is a problem, given that glyphosate based products are currently in the process of being banned in Europe.

The answer from Monsanto to that has been ghostwriting reports and pretend they didn't come from them.

The Supreme Court unanimously disagreed with you on Bowman v. Monsanto so I fail to see what was unethical there. In fact Vernon Bowman intentionally violated a contract that he voluntarily entered into so it seems clear he was the unethical party.

Legality and ethics are very different things.

Not at all. US law is pretty much in line with the national consensus on ethics (although perhaps not with your personal ethics). There are occasional discrepancies but when the national consensus undergoes major shifts the laws are usually revised accordingly within a few decades.

US people can't remotely agree on death penalty, marijuana usage, gun control, gay support, the church, abortion, war, trump or snowden. In a country where it's legal to openly give money to politicians, spy on all citizens and by pass habeas corpus.

I really doubt your statement.

So you agree with me that there are no clear universal ethical standards in some areas. You still haven't shown how Monsanto's actions were unethical.

Yes. Lying about harmful products you are selling is something unethical to my taste. At this point, I expect you to disagree.